A Requiem for the Moral Majority and the Death of Social Conservatism
September 5th, 2008 by Carl Thomas.This is not a political post. This is a post about the need for a revival of religion in the United States.
We have a two party system in America. One is characterized as the “social liberal” party, the Democrats, and the other the “social conservative” party, the Republicans. In the last thirty years the American electorate has been herded like cattle to vote for one party or the other according to these labels.
The social conservatives often touted “traditional family values” in an effort to stem the tide of the weakening of the moral standards we Christian feel is important to keep this country strong. That is why this years Republican ticket has me baffled.
The man at the top of the ticket is married to a woman who runs one of the largest beer distributors in the country. Many Pentecostal ministers make a vow that they will not even take a sip of liquor and almost all Christians believe that drunkenness is sin. Yet the top of the ticket makes its money off of drunkenness.
The second slot on the ticket is a woman who has left her five children, including a toddler, at home to pursue a career. She did this by choice, not because of economic need.
Aren’t these the liberal values that the moral majority was supposed to protect us from?
The truth is that the Republican party is no more Christian than the Democratic party. One was able to co-op the brand name better than the other.
Politicians can’t bring moral reform to the United States. Only Jesus can do that. This political season has convinced me more than ever that this country needs revival.
Possibly Related Posts
- It is time to tell the truth about Iraq - with 0 comments
- The Election - with 3 comments
- Yet Another Election Post - with 1 comments
very good thoughts; you’ll never make it as a politican, thank God.
[Reply]
Sarah Palin is also a Pentecostal, she is a member of an Assembly of God church.
The issue is not whether or not everyone on the ticket is a clean-nosed believer, the issue is whether or not they will uphold my values while in office.
Are they Pro-Life? yes.
Are they conservative? yes.
Are Democrats? NO.
So the issue is not whether or not they are a Christian party, the issue is whether or not they share values either close or far from my own.
Honestly, the quasi-dig on Palin was just absurd, by the way.
[Reply]
September 6th, 2008 at 11:11 am
I will address the pro-life question in another post. But the fact that you see it as a dig on Palin is somewhat telling.
But Palin not staying home to raise her kids flies in the face of what many would call social conservatism. It is not a dig. It is a fact. It does not make her a bad person. But when Clinton was running for office many bashed Hillary because she did the same thing.
Remember all the press playing the Hillary clip about her saying she did not want to “stay home and make cookies”? The social conservatives got all the home schooling moms on the news shows lambasting her. Where are they now? Have social conservative values changed that much?
I have no idols in the republican party. I call them like I see them.
[Reply]
November 5th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
found this video from Piper. He says I am right about the VP issue.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGjGbZNyIBY
[Reply]
Your greatest potential oversight in your criticism of Palin is whether she entered politics because perhaps, God called her there. The criticism of her you imply in the post is unmerited, imho.
Thanks for the reminder about Cindy McCain, I’ll concede your point while reminding everyone that on a much smaller scale, our Lord turned water into wine. I was impressed with her humanitarian work, particularly her Adoption of an impoverished girl in India.
I also anticipate McCain making a major turn to the political center in January, after throwing us “family values” type people something to get excited about in the Governor. This is bound to happen, and we need to pray. CBB
[Reply]
September 6th, 2008 at 11:18 am
The pentecostal movement was born out of the holiness movement. The folks that brought us the temperance movement. Imagine the Parham’s, Keswicks, and the Warner’s reaction to seeing pentecostal churches endorsing “purveyors of alcohol.”
I am not saying those who have a drink are in sin. Again, I am saying that this truly is the death of social conservatism as a political / religious movement. It needs a new definition.
[Reply]
I agree with you, after your last explanation. The overall spin is changing, especially if you’re alluding to the “Murphy Brown” type episode with Dan Quayle, who criticized the career oriented TV character for having a child from wedlock. And we were also pretty rough on Hillary 16 years ago. I’m glad this time around there’s a little less finger-pointing from the moral crowd.
Seems like the old “family values” coalition is indeed being redefined and rebranded. CBB
[Reply]
I guess Romney would have been a better choice–than there wouldn’t be the problem with alcohol or family alignment–and you would still be able to talk about the end of the Evangelical coalition.
[Reply]
September 6th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
You gotta know that I was rampin up for that.
[Reply]